Global warming: Verdict expected in climate protection trial against Shell

The decision of the appeal judges in the spectacular climate protection trial against the energy company Shell is eagerly awaited in The Hague. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences for other companies as well. What is it about? An overview:

What is the process about?

In 2018, the Dutch environmental organization Milieudefensie sued Shell. The oil and natural gas company was still partly a Dutch company back then, but now it is only British. The plaintiffs hold the company responsible for climate damage caused by the emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2. Shell must also adhere to the commitments of the Paris Climate Agreement.

What did the judges decide in the first instance?

In the first instance, the judges ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2021. Shell must then reduce its CO2 emissions by a net 45 percent by 2030 compared to 2019 and “make its contribution to the fight against dangerous climate change”. And according to the ruling, the obligation applies not only to the company’s own companies, but also to suppliers and end users. Never before had a judge forced a company to take such drastic climate protection measures.

What arguments do climate activists have?

“Shell is one of the biggest climate polluters,” says Milieudefensie director Donald Pols. Only China, the USA, Russia and India would emit more CO2. But climate change is putting human lives at risk and therefore also human rights. The plaintiffs are of the opinion that the commitments made by states in the Paris Climate Agreement also apply to companies. “The impunity of large multinational companies must end,” says Pols.

The British energy company believes that there is no obligation for companies to reduce pollutants in the Paris climate agreement. Governments, not courts, would have to order this. In addition, a company cannot legally be held responsible for the CO2 emissions of its customers. Ultimately, consumers decided for themselves which energy they used and how much.

Shell also believes that the idea that convicting Shell will help the climate is naive. If Shell stopped supplying oil or gas, another energy company would fill the gap, or drivers would fill up at other gas stations.

What consequences does Shell fear if it is convicted?

This could have economic consequences for Shell if it had to produce less oil and gas or close gas stations. Shell warns of negative consequences for other companies too. For example, the airline KLM is dependent on kerosene. Planes must remain on the ground, says Shell.

What consequences do environmentalists hope for?

The plaintiffs expect a positive effect on other proceedings. There are already similar complaints from environmentalists around the world. In the Netherlands, Milieudefensie initiated proceedings against the major bank ING. And the organization also hopes that a ruling will make it more concrete what requirements can be placed on companies when it comes to climate protection.

What happens after the verdict?

If Shell loses, it would be a big victory for the climate protection movement and an incentive for companies to get serious about the energy transition. If Shell wins, it would be a major defeat for climate activists and corporations could see it as confirmation that the world cannot survive without fossil fuels. If they lose, both sides will appeal to the highest authority in the Netherlands. This process has almost certainly not reached its end point yet.